Thursday, July 8, 2010

Ha ha, people can be so stupid when it comes to their computers! It just makes a former physicist like you or me sick, how stupid some people can be. Figuring out solutions to their problems that aren't as efficient as possible? Ludicrous! [yes, i originally wrote "there" instead of "their" in a sentence mocking stupidity. enjoy, people.]

On the one hand, this comic is less annoying than the oft-heard concept online that people need to stop bugging us nerds for to help solve their problems. On the other hand, it's saying that even if other people solve their own problems, some people/comics will still make fun of them for it. So, non-xkcd readers are screwed either way. Ask for help, and we'll mock you for needing help. Solve the problem on your own, and we'll mock you for doing it wrong. Solve it right, and you'll just break even: "whatver, I could have done that."

I can't tell, though, if it's the same attitude espoused in this comic or the opposite one.

It is, i know, the same mindset that pisses me off about this thinkgeek shirt. Strangely, that's the second time in recent memory that I've said something to the effect of, "Yes, this xkcd is annoying, but not nearly as annoying as this thinkgeek shirt."

<thinkgeek rant>

I like thinkgeek, I like them a lot. They sell many many wonderful things. But sometimes - usually in their product descriptions, occasionally in their products, as in the examples above, they veer too hard into the "fake nerd" category, the marketing category that gives us gems like "let's make a pie tin in the shape of pi! because, you know, NERDS!" or maybe "if we take this unsellable product and either put an image from Portal on it or infuse it with the smell of bacon, everyone will want it! because, you know, nerds!" It pisses me off. It's not really their fault; they are trying to sell things and if they can get their customers to feel like not just thinkgeek customers but a whole seperate social group then I am sure that helps their business. So I guess the people I am really disappointed in are the fake nerds.

Has anyone run accross anyone else writing about this sort of thing, what I've taken to calling faux-nerdery? Surely there has been something.

[for what it's worth, a long-term xkcd trend has been to stop appealing to actual nerds and just appeal to faux-nerds. I actually think loving xkcd may be a central tenet of faux-nerd culture]

</thinkgeek rant>

lastly, is there a reason the alt-text says "six partitions, labelled c: through j:" ? Is that not 8 drives? I know my computer has C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. Or is the implication that he misnamed them?

So this turned into far less of a post on xkcd and more of a general one. Oh well, if that is the way my muse inspires me.

=========

Guys! It's been almost 2 months since the xkcd blog updated! I wonder what's been happening.

Has Daisy Owl just given up, or am I missing something? There hasn't been an update in weeks, and the author finally took down that "guys I am back so I'll be making comics again" notice. Does anyone know what the deal is?

Lastly, i cannot wait for the Overcompensating book! That is all. I just want you all to know I am excited.

For the C: thru J: being 6 instead of 8, frequently Windows sets the CD/DVD drive letters somewhere in that range during setup, and maybe the guy didn't know how to change them, so his new HDD partitions just appeared after them. Or maybe Randy can't count. Who knows...

Did you know that water in drains spins backwards in the southern hemisphere. Cue letters from physics majors complaining that this view of hydrodynamics perpetuates a widespread myth. They get to write letters like that because when you're not getting a real social science degree you have a lot of free time.

Regarding the six drives C through J thing, when the comic was first put up, the alt-text said eight drives C through H. I'm assuming people pointed out the flaw in that there were only six letters in C through H, and Randall tried to change it, but he got confused as to which one he was going to change, so he changed them both.

Also fuck Randall hard, the newest comic is so bad. "D'oh ho ho anthropology isn't a real science!" God damn he pisses me off. But of course, he has a nostalgic reference and he insults those different from himself, so the forums will love this and herald it as the best xkcd in ages.

you know, most of the busiest people I've ever met haven't been science people, who regularly have all sorts of free time, but art and music students. does that make them better people than science types?

Hey Randy, you're a "real" science major, correct? And you're talking about how majors that don't do "real" science have extra time to write letters. You're a fucking webcomic writer. You draw stick figures that are marginally funny at best, three times a week. That is your job. You're telling social scientists that THEY have free time?

Wooooooow. That's an exceedingly bitchy alt text on 764. I mean, even by usual XKCD standards. Seriously, that's basically just being an asshole. "Hey, you're not getting a REAL science degree, you're just being fucking lazy."

As for the C: to J: 6/8 thing, originally, I thought it was just him being "I didn't say inclusive! Ha!" So that you'd have D: to I:, but if he changed it, I'm not sure any more. That might be the joke *now*, and the original joke was the person somehow mapped the drive letters twice, and people didn't get it so he changed it. But I just can't be sure.

"The great battlefield for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the whole southern half of the globe-Asia, latin america, africa and the middle east."Cue comics from pedantic webcomic "artists" complaining that this view of the world perpetuates a widespread myth. They get to write comics like that because when your only job is spending five minutes three times a week drawing stick-figures and pandering to your zealously loyal fanbase you have a lot of free time.

"Regarding the six drives C through J thing, when the comic was first put up, the alt-text said eight drives C through H. I'm assuming people pointed out the flaw in that there were only six letters in C through H, and Randall tried to change it, but he got confused as to which one he was going to change, so he changed them both."

@Rob: I completely agree. My little brother is in college for Drama etc. He has next to no free time whatsoever. And whatever free time he DOES have, he spends going to plays where he really is spending more time studying than just relaxing.

On that note, this was actually the first XKCD comic ever, that when I read the alt text, I felt the overwhelming urge to tell Randall to go fuck himself. Never felt like I had to say that before today.

@anonymous 9:54 - I think he's trying to make an observation about the Pirahã language, since he's being snippy about anthropologists.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language#Numerals_and_grammatical_number

With respect to fiction, Watership Down had a "one, two, three, four, many" counting system, but I don't think that's what he was shooting for.

On the topic of 'real sciences': Math is nothing more than applied logic, logic is nothing more than applied philosophy, philosophy is nothing more than applied psychology. FUCK OFF AND DIE RANDALL.

On the topic of fake nerds: Oh god finally someone else noticed. Yes, yes, yes, there's a huge storm of pseudo-nerd hipsters, and they all centre around ThinkGeek. Here's something I discovered: the moment someone tries to make something that's consciously nerdy, they cross the line.

Genuine, authentic nerdery can only come from eclectic, incohesive taste. Trying to define a nerd culture ruins the magic.

Please Carl, tear Randall a new one for the new comic. I have a BA in math and 764 just makes me cringe. It says so much about how Randall is oblivious to anything outside his minuscule world of college memories, Wikipedia, and Firefly.

You and me both Jesus. After that comic, I am seriously considering never reading XKCD again. Before I just found it amusing, and at least worth the 10 seconds it takes to go to the page and read it. After this, I am actually so pissed off at Randall as a person that I don't want to have anything to do with him or his "work". The only thing stopping me from boycotting altogether, is that I enjoy this site, and I want to know what everyone is talking about. =(

"They get to write letters like that because they have lots of free time."

And you get to draw comics like that because - ?

(Okay, it's not free time => draw comics. But you know what I mean.)

Also, this comic contains a culture with close to no mathematics that has managed to invent TV. What are you implying about maths here, Mr. Munroe?

Yeah, 764 is ... weird. I'm giving RM the benefit of the doubt, and saying that it's his way to be friendly. Like how people often tease and make light of one another when friends. So Randall goes in a room full of strangers and yells "you are all assholes" at the top of his lungs.

I'm a graduate student in linguistics, so I'm definitely one of those people who would be tempted to write in. (But actually more to just complain about it e.g. here.)

My undergrad major I did CS and ling... but I think I would have found the spare time even doing a "real" science on top of the "fake" one. And even now I spend most of my time working writing code. Aren't we talking about the guy who wrote a comic about "Someone's being wrong on the Internet!"?

The bullshit thought process displayed in the comic is this:

1. Say something you yourself know is (at least partially) wrong or objectionable.2a. Say that anyone who corrects you is wasting their time because that knowledge is worthless.(or)2b. "Joke" that anyone who corrects you is wasting their time because that knowledge is worthless.3. Pretend that the 2a or 2b mean you're actually not wrong at all.

This is a super common line. For bonus points, act as if the knowledge is really important up until being told you're wrong. Only then change your mind. (RM didn't do this one as far as I can tell.)

It's bullshit. It's arrogant and intellectually juvenile. Absolutely anyone who prides themselves on any sort of learning or mental sophistication should be ashamed of it.

Don't anthropologists still need a deep understanding of "real" science? Or maybe I'm just being overinfluenced by "Bones" here.

I'm continually baffled that Randall would be so condescending towards entire fields of study he demonstrably misunderstands when his entire career as a "scientist" amounts to about a thimble of "scientific" credibility.

I'm a physicist (the kind that actually does things involving physics, not the kind that makes stick-figure comics for a living) and 764's alt-text makes me regret having the same degree as Mr. Munroe. Also, the comic itself was pretty stupid too.

Basileus: Oh I know. The fact that I know someone who is in Drama and has no time, is a separate point from my moral outrage over his statement. I am not "personally" offended by his statement. I don't know anyone personally who his insult would apply to. That doesn't change the fact that it was a baseless insult that wasn't even in the form of a joke. It was a flat out insult to those people.

Bland: There is a big difference, because when you scream you're all assholes to a group of random people in a room, you are likely joking as a way of getting attention, and the people will know you're just vying for attention. What Randall did was not that, it was a direct and specific insult, that was NOT part of any kind of joke. It certainly didn't enhance the comic.

On the subject of Daisy Owl, the author recently posted this on the Cracked forums:

"A few people have pointed me towards this thread, so let me try and explain what's up:

When I started the comic, it was something I did because I loved it. It certainly didn't hurt that lots of strangers on the internet seemed to like it too. My readership grew from a few friends, to a hundred people, to tens of thousands. Less than a year later, I had saved up enough money to quit my job and try to do it full time.

But then it shifted from something I loved doing, into something I had to do. Instead of drawing a comic when I had a funny idea, I had to UPDATE. And then I had to take time from comics, and spend it on making shirts and posters and prints, and ordering them, and packing them, and mailing them, all for very little profit. I won't lie, it was fun to call myself a PROFESSIONAL WEBCOMIC ARTIST, but the reality is that it just took all the joy out of something I used to love doing.

I'm not done with comics, or Daisy Owl, for that matter. I want to create things more than ever, and I'm always thinking of new stories and characters. Stuff that wouldn't necessarily fit into a daily* comic format. But if I force myself to treat my passion in life as a chore, I will just slowly morph into Jim Davis.

At the moment, I'm doing some programming to pay the bills, and working on some projects that might turn into something more. So no, nothing terrible has happened to me, nor am I buried under a pile of attractive women. Not today, at least.

Regarding the Drama connection, he says "everyone not getting a real science degree", which can easily be read to include the arts.

What gets me is the science geek culture of thinking other courses are "easy", while theirs is "hard". I certainly ran into a lot of that during undergrad.

The plain fact is that undergrad was not that hard. In engineering, math and physics, you read a few books, do a lot of exercises, maybe the occasional project, and you're set. At the undergrad level, very little independent thought is required in the "hard" sciences, just some technical facility. This is not a controversial statement even among mathematicians. Any reasonably alert student complained about it.

Than along comes this asshole with a BA in physics and makes it out to be some major accomplishment. Jesus H. Christ. Talk about Feynman's pompous fools!

I'm also CS/ling and studying further in ling and I agree with pretty much everything you say. I will also say that in many ways I find writing code to be easier and less time-consuming than researching for linguistics.

The forum is kind of hilarious at the moment though, there's a flame war brewing between those who blindly agree with Randall and are therefore trying to defend the alt-text versus everyone who realises that the alt-text is stupidly offensive, ie. everyone with a brain

Hipster nerds:- If I can understand something, it's not meant for real nerds. - Why is being a nerd popular, anyway? Is it because people want to feel like special, smart snowflakes?

New comic:- Randall's been reading Wikipedia again for inspiration. Check out the entry for the number three.- If it were a Discworld reference, it would be 'one... two... many... lots... ah, ah, ah'. I suspect they're talking about the same myth.- Alt-text is just asking for controversy in the hope he'll get more scientific people to love the comic again.

I stopped reading the comic long ago and usually only see it when Carl gets a review up here, but the backlash in the comments piqued my curiosity.

As a linguistics major, I was pissed off enough that somehow Randall thinks a one/two/many number system is 'primitive', and thought that's what everyone's issue was. Not going to get into whether one language is 'better' than others.

Then I saw the alt text. Randall's peaked with that one. I'm not sure more douchebaggery is even possible.

But I've figured it out. Hard sciences allow for so little free time that Randall's BA in physics (did you know that Randall's the only person to ever attain a Bachelor's in Physics? It's one of the highest achievements in academia.) is keeping him from devoting more time than 20 minutes a week on his webcomic. It's just a side project while he's incredibly busy using his BA in physics to launch his career. That's it.

Mr. G, I agree this comic is really fucking stupid, but I'm not really into linguistics, so let me ask you: assuming that the not being able to count past two thing is real, how can you say that not being able to count past two is not a major disadvantage? The word primitive may be really loaded, but that's still not a good system.

It's obviously an adequate enough system for the societies who speak those languages. I'd say the primary purpose of language is to communicate meaning. If the society needed to often distinguish exactly three or exactly four items, it would develop a system to convey those ideas. I won't argue that societies using these languages aren't primitive in many ways, but a language that provides for all the communication needs of its speakers is one that is serving its function. Perhaps I'm overdoing it.

Wow, that alt text. No longer content with merely implying that anyone who doesn't study physics is inferior, Randall decides to address a nice big "fuck you" to all us inferior non-"real science" majors. Lovely!

xkcd: a webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language (but only for sufficiently shallow topics of the last). After all, he wouldn't want anyone to think he had any interest in - gag - liberal arts!

I actually empathize with the sentiment of that thinkgeek shirt. Though not with the typically snobbish attitude that produces such a sentiment. I am a Computer Science major, who focuses on theoretical Computer Science, and a tutor at a drop in tutoring center. While at my job I am regularly asked by tutees to fix their computer problems. It is not in my duties at work to fix their computer issues nor is it within my skill set. So I relate to that sentiment because I am someone who focuses on the theoretical aspects of CS and not an Information Technologist.

Anon 11:21: Thanks for the update on daisy owl. I've spent a lot of time thinking about the difficulty with updating a comic regularly, especially when your job depends on it. I should write something about that question some day.

Very low chance of the Count von Count comic getting to my angriest rants, because 1, i am a little too busy to write a long post this weekend, 2, Rob's already written something pretty good, and 3, i can't quite figure out how to get angry at it properly, it's something about how the outrage is directed at the alt-text and not the comic proper. In my mind, the alt text is still in a place where it operates like an aside, a frosting, if you will, on the comic. It could say a lot of terrible, offensive things and it still wouldn't really affect how I read the comic.

Lastly, to the most recent anon, on the thinkgeek shirt - that's all well and good if you only wore the shirt in the Computer Lab where people are always coming up to you, and because you work there there is an expectation that you might be able to help. But what if you are just walking down the street (to your job at the lab, say)? It's basically saying, apropos of nothing, "I am smart enough to fix your computer. And a big enough jerk not to actually help you." How obnoxious is that? hugely.

"What gets me is the science geek culture of thinking other courses are "easy", while theirs is "hard". I certainly ran into a lot of that during undergrad.

The plain fact is that undergrad was not that hard. In engineering, math and physics, you read a few books, do a lot of exercises, maybe the occasional project, and you're set. At the undergrad level, very little independent thought is required in the "hard" sciences, just some technical facility. This is not a controversial statement even among mathematicians. Any reasonably alert student complained about it."

---

I'm not going to argue the point that, at the undergrad level, math/science/engineering courses don't require much critical thinking. All of my aerospace engineering courses, at the most basic level, boiled down to a whole lot of specialized, applied math. However, by the end of the degree, it certainly did require a large amount of critical thinking to apply knowledge gained over a four year period to the specific problem at hand...

Coming from the "hard science" side of undergraduate life, I can tell you EXACTLY why the hard science/engineering nerd crowd thinks our stuff is harder than the social science/lib-ed stuff: WE'RE CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT BY OUR FELLOW UNDERGRADS ON THE LIB-ED SIDE.

In order to be a "well rounded individual", UMN required us to take classes in other fields; inevitably, everyone takes a freshman-level class just to fulfill the requirement. All of the math/science geeks would complain about how ridiculously easy the classes like "introduction to sociology" or "intro to film study" were, while the lib-ed folks would bitch and moan to no end about how difficult "college algebra" or "intro to physics for non-majors" were. I understand not everyone outside of the science-y majors thinks classes like those are hard, but they're the exception, not the rule (or they're at least quieter)

Mathematics, hard science, and engineering undergrads are going to keep thinking their majors are harder as long as all of the other undergrads keep whining about how hard intro math and science classes are.

"Coming from the "hard science" side of undergraduate life, I can tell you EXACTLY why the hard science/engineering nerd crowd thinks our stuff is harder than the social science/lib-ed stuff: WE'RE CONSTANTLY TOLD THAT BY OUR FELLOW UNDERGRADS ON THE LIB-ED SIDE."

what, and you believe them? really?

you think that because some people aren't good at math, and you find an Intro To Sociology class easy, that your major is actually harder? really?

number one: people who don't find math hard don't complain about how hard it is. they aren't going to say "math is easy," though. there's a number of reasons for this, mostly related to

number two: culturally speaking, math and science are seen as "hard." psychology and sociology tell us (after several experiments that hard math/science people could likely never have devised or conducted to be suitably scientifically rigorous) that one's beliefs tend to greatly shape their performance. when an asian is given stereotypes about how asians are better at math, they do better at math. when a kid is told that something is too hard for him, he does poorly at it. there is an overwhelming cultural influence that says "math and science are hard" and "math and science are for nerds."

this leads to

number three: most people who are bad at math or science have been bad at it for years and years, because of this cultural expectation and, most likely, a lack of adequate teaching. they aren't good at it. they have always just scraped by. their intro-level college classes build on their complete elementary and secondary school educations in math, but they have not been paying attention to that past about fifth or sixth grade. it builds on something they essentially do not have, in other words.

that is the difference between intro math classes and intro sociology classes. it's not that one is harder and the other is easier; it's that one of them is essentially in a foreign language to a good number of people. an intro to sociology class, in contrast, only requires you to speak English (or your primary language of choice).

math and science classes culturally self-select so that intelligent kids will be more likely to take them--because "math is hard and math is for nerds and only smart people can take math classes." it isn't harder, but kids are told that it's harder from as soon as they're old enough to care about which classes are harder or easier.

your first paragraph:

"I'm not going to argue the point that, at the undergrad level, math/science/engineering courses don't require much critical thinking. All of my aerospace engineering courses, at the most basic level, boiled down to a whole lot of specialized, applied math. However, by the end of the degree, it certainly did require a large amount of critical thinking to apply knowledge gained over a four year period to the specific problem at hand..."

by this description, humanities degrees are significantly harder. they require both critical and creative thinking in nearly every one of their classes, as well as a great deal of both in order to apply their knowledge gained over a four year period to the specific problem at hand. it also usually requires a lot more research, which is an entirely different skill, and it completely lacks an immediately verifiable correct answer.

mostly, I blame the math/science geeks for perpetuating the myth that it's harder. instead of buying into the cultural stereotype that it's hard and it's only for smart people, and assuming that because they can do it they are smart people who can do hard things, they should come to the realization that the reason they don't find it hard is because it's not hard. they should try to break the myths. they should advocate for better math education, specifically the kind of education that says "this shit is easy." they could fight to break the paradigm.

but instead they congratulate themselves for being so incredibly brilliant, and assume that everyone in other degrees is just too dumb to do their super smart degree.

also, can we please all agree that fine arts people kick the asses of everyone else at working hard? because they do. if anyone ever accuses fine arts kids of having too much time on their hands that person needs to be punched in the solar plexus.

Rob, I don't disagree with anything you've written in your last two posts, but I think there's one more thing worth taking into consideration: standards for success are vastly different within and without the hard sciences.

NB: I'm referring here entirely to non-elite programs. I did my time as an undgergrad in both hard and soft sciences at two different low-ranked institutions, and I've spent the last several years working closely with *lots* of students on both sides of the divide at a mid-tier institution. Everything I say here is based on personal, non-rigorous observation, so take it as you will.

With those caveats, it has been my experience that non-STEM instructors seem more likely than their STEM counterparts to assign good grades to mediocre work. It may be equally hard to produce truly excellent work on both sides of the divide, but excellent and mediocre work are more likely to be differentiated on one side of the divide than the other.

So, STEM students end up seeing plenty of soft-science and humanities slackers pulling down As and the occasional B, while STEM slackers have to scramble for a C.

Judging from what I've read on the Chronicle of Higher Education forums and from discussions with non-STEM faculty, there are strong institutional factors influencing grade inflation in non-STEM classes.

Shorter: It's a lot harder to flunk out of a psychology program than a physics program, and it has nothing to do with the inherent difficulty of the fields.

a good part of that is probably that there aren't really correct answers in humanities. grading is perforce different. of course, grade inflation is also a serious problem, but that's got a lot more to do with academia than anything.

Rob -"(after several experiments that hard math/science people could likely never have devised or conducted to be suitably scientifically rigorous)"

This made me cringe. Statistics is essentially what you're describing here which is more than anything pure math and used extensively by "hard science" majors and "not hard science" majors alike. Try not to respond to stupid insults with equally stupid insults, I tend to enjoy what you write.

My 2 cents:No major is more difficult than another, but people will have different experiences and some people will *choose* to work harder than others (I think is the case with a lot of Fine Arts people). I busted my ass in college so I could (almost) guarantee myself a good job and I didn't know anyone who worked as hard as I did, not-hard science or otherwise. The not-hard science people often complained about the three hours of work they did the week before, but I think that's because the ones that I knew had no ambition, not that their entire major was made up of idiots.

"Statistics is essentially what you're describing here which is more than anything pure math and used extensively by "hard science" majors and "not hard science" majors alike."

no, it really isn't. see, statistics consists of numbers. psychological and sociological experiments consist of humans. if I were talking about statistics I would not have said that. I wouldn't have said anything, because it would have been entirely unremarkable on that subject.

it seems like you are telling me that hard science people could just as easily have devised and conducted most of the psychological experiments, without any change in their background--just on a whim one day come up with these. perhaps you could clarify that you aren't actually positing the dumbest thing I've heard all week?

"a good part of that is probably that there aren't really correct answers in humanities. grading is perforce different. of course, grade inflation is also a serious problem, but that's got a lot more to do with academia than anything."

Rob- some of the things I don't entirely agree with, but I feel this statement hits the nail right on the fucking head.

Being a good writer, scientist, artist or expressionistic seal tamer requires a lot of dedication, self-critique, creative thinking, and numerous other skills.

It's just easier to tell when a numerical science-type problem is wrong

Actually, with the C-through-J thing, probably six. D is usually reserved for the optical drive, unless you change it, and IIRC there is another letter in the range (E, I think) that is also reserved unless a change is forced. It's not hard - but not many people actually think of doing that.With that being said, if you can partition a hard drive you can probably change a drive letter.

I think the point being made in the comic is that people will often make things unnecessarily difficult for themselves if they are thrown in the deep end of a problem. I see people doing this to themselves every day, and I wonder why the person who gave them the problem didn't just tell them what the easy way to do it is. It's not a point about 'people are so dumb'. It's a point about 'people are smart, but they also like to do things the hard way when they don't have to'. Yes, you could do all that to send a Youtube video - but isn't it just easier to copy and paste the URL into an email or FlashGot the video if you really want the file? We're all guilty of doing this at some point, geek or not - we've all done something difficult and complicated, then stopped and said to ourselves, 'I didn't really need to do that. Man. I just wasted so much time making things hard for myself.'

As for Randall prodding social sciences - he's made jokes about the supposed rivalries between fields in science before. He's got a screwed-up sense of humor, that's true, but remember the 'purity of fields' comic? Or even the 'intelligent cuttlefish' comic? Not a first. Or it's possible that an anthropologist pissed him off and he was blowing off steam by flipping the bird at the entire field.

Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.

Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.

Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.

Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.

Rob, Statistics is not *all* about numbers; it's also about devising or conducting experiments to be suitably scientifically rigorous. That's the only problem I had with your statement. It doesn't take a psychologist to devise a rigorous experiment. "Hard science" people would probably not have the knowledge to conduct experiments that sociologists and psychologists would, but I would wager they can tell if one is rigorous based on their Statistics knowledge (I know I can). If you've never taken a Statistics class it might be hard to understand it's real purpose (I remember thinking it was stupid before I took it), but if you haven't and you think I'm spouting lies I encourage you to learn about it. It's rather interesting and can give you a new perspective on all of the "studies" that people conduct.

Rob and Anon@11:25, total agreement again. It's a lot easier to fake competence in the humanities, especially if the evaluator prizes cleverness over adherence to the texts.

Kevin, while experimental design is often taught alongside statistics, I think they're separate disciplines that are often lumped together in the classroom for convenience.

Further, a physicist with no psychological background wouldn't know what questions might be interesting to test experimentally, nor would he or she realize the limitations inherent in some experimental methods (first-person self-report surveys, for example, are great at telling us how people see themselves or want to be seen, but little about what they actually are like). And stuff.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.